Poll: Should our species be exempt from culling?

[Darius Brogan]

The point I'm making is that we humans have unimaginable potential: just look at how far we've come in the last five thousand years. Trees and flowers have zero potential, and literally do not have minds, so should be disregarded.

So... Should we kill off all the plants and trees then? How about insects? or even half the other far inferior species could probably go as well. They are obviously in the way our progression to ascend to out rightful place as gods of this world? [/sarcasm]

No, because they're useful to us. We need them to exist. Note that this only makes them important in conjunction with humanity.

Okay, that was probably quite offensive and distasteful to people, so apologies where needed.

Seriously though I am probably one of the first people to admit that I dislike other people, even put back in context, the superior-species entitlement some people have these days is quite disturbing.

So here we go, you're a people-hating misanthrope, which explains why you get on better with grass than people. But some of us have a vested interest in survival and progress.

And you're a specie-elitist Hitler that doesn't seem to realize all facets of his own race (Not to mention doesn't read whole posts)

Now that I have given you the satisfaction of sinking to your level of namecalling, shall we move on?

I don't know about you, but I'm sure I can name the primary only contributing factor that will lead humanity extinct.

Oh God, tell me you didn't just compare trees to Jews, or civilization to the Holocaust.

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because you're starting to give the impression of being a tiny little bit sociopathic not to mention unhinged species-traitor.

snip

Listen, it's this simple. We are humans. Look around and take in everything that we have achieved and created. Now look at animals and plants. What have they achieved? Nothing. What will they ever achieve? Nothing. They are simply biological processes. So are we. We are, however, far more advanced biological processes.

That is, of course, taking the very broad universal perspective. Since we are humans, we ought to take the human angle, which is this simple: we are human. We are more important, because we are we and they are they (not to mention considerably inferior in any case). Therefore, it is in our interest, yours and mine, to survive, even at their cost. That is instinct. That is our purpose. Anyone who fails to live by this creed, dies. Simple Darwinism.

Anyway, what's your long-term plan if it doesn't involve human survival?

I wonder if you realize that your own argument is working against you. You say humans are superior creatures, MORE advanced biological processes. Riddle me this, Why do insects have chitinous armour plating? Why are Cheetahs the fastest mammal on Earth, the Peregrin Falcon the fastest animal.

Each of them and many more all have mechanisms to maintain their own lives, Humanities only advantage is the fact that, sometime in our species history, we caught a disease, a virus, that causes our brains to develop in place of jaw muscles.
We have no claws, no fur, no armour, no fangs, we can't see at night without aid, we're not fast, we're not strong, we cannot fly. We have only the basest of physical senses that tell us what is going on in the world at large, and we rely almost entirely on our sight.
How, even with all of our supposed 'achievements', even though 'achievement' is a human based term, are humans actually BETTER than other animals??

Besides, I couldn't care less about humans as a whole. I will be seeing to my survival and mine alone in the foreseeable future, and in the event that I need oversee another humans well-being, I will only do so if they are first capable of surviving, and providing something of use to me, you know, as human nature dictates.

We don't have that stuff, but hey look we developed technology that more than makes up for the lack of those things. Physical attributes aren't everything. It doesn't matter whether success comes from physical or mental attributes, what matters is that there is success. All those physical attributes of animals? Nothing compared to what we did with our mental ones.

Cheetah runs fast? Car goes faster. No claws? Guns and knives. Not strong? We have machines to move shit. Can't see at night without aid? Why's the 'aid' matter, if you manage to see at night, you manage to see at night. And we have airplanes to fly us places.

Our senses? We managed to see far beyond our planet with what we came up with. Who cares about what capabilities we'reborn with? What matters if what we accomplish regardless of the means.

My point, if you had read and absorbed ANY of the information in my last post, was that valkyrie said we were 'more advanced' or 'superior' genetic processess. the only advancement we have on primitive animals, is a scientifically proven virus that caused our brains to grow in place of our jaw muscles. We're a genetic fuck-up that has a superiority complex. Nothing more, nothing less. The simple fact that we have to MAKE shit to keep ourselves alive is a failing we have yet to overcome, not a point to our superiority.

Apparently you don't get my point. It's pretty clearly more advanced because, well, just look at the results of it. HOW it happened it nothing but a diversion from the point.

And as for superior genetics, well our genetics produce something capable of dominating the planet. So which are superior? Pretty damn obvious. Our brains don't pop out ex nihilo, they're a product of our genetic processes, and one that apparently is worth more than any cheetah that can run fast. We do things that biology can't, making shit is superior to being born with it because of that.

A genetic fuck-up? Since when was success a fuck-up? Nature doesn't give a damn how it happened, just that it happened.

Rofl, making shit isn't something to overcome. You have a skewed view of things. It doesn't matter how it happens, what matters is that it happened. We survive. That we had to make stuff to aid ourselves do so isn't a failing, it just is. And we make stuff that biology can't compete with, so it's stupid to worship it like a god.

Our brains are not a product of our genetic processes, THAT'S what I'm getting at. A virus caused our brains to grow.
The result of that virus was a creature so defenseless, it needed to actually MAKE shit to prevent it's own extinction.

Yes, the fact that we survived would be impressive, if we didn't breed worse than rabbits, thereby creating a population too massive to actually wipe out.

Sure, at first we beat them off with sticks, then bigger sticks, then even bigger ones made of metal.

None of that matters because our 'accomplishments' only have ANY value at all when another Human is looking at them.

That in itself is a failure. We need OUR OWN SPECIES to tell us that we're actually doing something worthwhile, and that's sad.

The simple fact that humans NEED a sense of accomplishment to make themselves feel superior when, in fact, we're no greater than any other creature on this planet, is a FAILURE. It's something that is unnecessary and extra. Superfluous, and excessive.

Survival is all that matters in any creatures instincts, humans have dulled their instincts to the point that they are almost non-existent, and they need shit like towers, cars, planes, and spacecraft to make themselves comfortable at night.

 

[Azure Sky]

Apparently you don't get my point. It's pretty clearly more advanced because, well, just look at the results of it. HOW it happened it nothing but a diversion from the point.

And as for superior genetics, well our genetics produce something capable of dominating the planet. So which are superior? Pretty damn obvious. Our brains don't pop out ex nihilo, they're a product of our genetic processes, and one that apparently is worth more than any cheetah that can run fast. We do things that biology can't, making shit is superior to being born with it because of that.

A genetic fuck-up? Since when was success a fuck-up? Nature doesn't give a damn how it happened, just that it happened.

Rofl, making shit isn't something to overcome. You have a skewed view of things. It doesn't matter how it happens, what matters is that it happened. We survive. That we had to make stuff to aid ourselves do so isn't a failing, it just is. And we make stuff that biology can't compete with, so it's stupid to worship it like a god.

Think of it this way, you are driving down the highway, middle of nowhere, covering hundreds of miles crossing the vast expanse. Cars are a wondrous thing are they not? Anyway, picture you getting a flat and then realizing the spare is missing/also flat. No cell signal either. Now what?

What I am getting at is while technology may not be a crutch, it is by no means perfect.
It kills hundreds of people a day in the world. Some of it even fails frequently. Most of it consumes power, which drains resources from the planet.

The difference between a group of people and a group of wild animals is that if/when something happens to our technology, all of a sudden we are left very weak and helpless.

Also, last I checked back during caveman days, the only reason man didn't go extinct is because we got lucky, repeatedly.

That's a rather unlikely scenario. For the most part cars work well enough and having the spare just happen to be flat is rather convenient. Anyway, presumably someone else will come by eventually. If not, well mistakes happen in biology too.

Biological mistakes kill plenty of animals. I'm not seeing the point. If we look at the big picture it seems to have said far more people than it's killed.

We're not suddenly left weak and helpless. We can create tools. And how likely is it that any significant portion of people is going to suddenly lose their technology? I think it's more likely an animal's going to die of a disease we can treat for humans than humans are going to suddenly be deprived of technology in a way that kills them.

And you can say luck is how other animals survived as well. What's the point?

I have seen the no-spare happen before, I still don't let my friend live it down. Do motorbikes have spares..? And Cell signal here is terrible in the middle on nowhere here, even going out to a country town will drop you more time than I care to think of. Anyway, did you know it would be rather simple to technologically set an entire country back in to the dark ages? We even have the technology to do it, complete with enough world leaders sitting on a big red button to make it happen. The good old atmosphere-detonated nuke, the EM from one of those would knock out a country. Unlikely I grant you, but quite plausible. I know far to many people that wouldn't last a month without any form of powered device. It's quite scary.

Also, fire was a massive fluke.

Anyway not to be the biggest party pooper in here, time to place this train back on the rails.
Which was what... Human culling, and the sub-discussion of what would be the more humane way of dealing with things.

Also, I am rambling enough as it is due to it being after 6am, I am going to bed. =3

 

[Soushi]

Is there anyone on these forums, besides me, that actually likes people? As it happens there's more then enough room for all of us.

I like people, i like people quite a lot. So no, you are not alone.

 

[Ampersand]

Is there anyone on these forums, besides me, that actually likes people? As it happens there's more then enough room for all of us.

I like people, i like people quite a lot. So no, you are not alone.

Yayz = D

 

[Darius Brogan]

The point I'm making is that we humans have unimaginable potential: just look at how far we've come in the last five thousand years. Trees and flowers have zero potential, and literally do not have minds, so should be disregarded.

So... Should we kill off all the plants and trees then? How about insects? or even half the other far inferior species could probably go as well. They are obviously in the way our progression to ascend to out rightful place as gods of this world? [/sarcasm]

No, because they're useful to us. We need them to exist. Note that this only makes them important in conjunction with humanity.

Okay, that was probably quite offensive and distasteful to people, so apologies where needed.

Seriously though I am probably one of the first people to admit that I dislike other people, even put back in context, the superior-species entitlement some people have these days is quite disturbing.

So here we go, you're a people-hating misanthrope, which explains why you get on better with grass than people. But some of us have a vested interest in survival and progress.

And you're a specie-elitist Hitler that doesn't seem to realize all facets of his own race (Not to mention doesn't read whole posts)

Now that I have given you the satisfaction of sinking to your level of namecalling, shall we move on?

I don't know about you, but I'm sure I can name the primary only contributing factor that will lead humanity extinct.

Oh God, tell me you didn't just compare trees to Jews, or civilization to the Holocaust.

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because you're starting to give the impression of being a tiny little bit sociopathic not to mention unhinged species-traitor.

snip

Listen, it's this simple. We are humans. Look around and take in everything that we have achieved and created. Now look at animals and plants. What have they achieved? Nothing. What will they ever achieve? Nothing. They are simply biological processes. So are we. We are, however, far more advanced biological processes.

That is, of course, taking the very broad universal perspective. Since we are humans, we ought to take the human angle, which is this simple: we are human. We are more important, because we are we and they are they (not to mention considerably inferior in any case). Therefore, it is in our interest, yours and mine, to survive, even at their cost. That is instinct. That is our purpose. Anyone who fails to live by this creed, dies. Simple Darwinism.

Anyway, what's your long-term plan if it doesn't involve human survival?

I wonder if you realize that your own argument is working against you. You say humans are superior creatures, MORE advanced biological processes. Riddle me this, Why do insects have chitinous armour plating? Why are Cheetahs the fastest mammal on Earth, the Peregrin Falcon the fastest animal.

Each of them and many more all have mechanisms to maintain their own lives, Humanities only advantage is the fact that, sometime in our species history, we caught a disease, a virus, that causes our brains to develop in place of jaw muscles.
We have no claws, no fur, no armour, no fangs, we can't see at night without aid, we're not fast, we're not strong, we cannot fly. We have only the basest of physical senses that tell us what is going on in the world at large, and we rely almost entirely on our sight.
How, even with all of our supposed 'achievements', even though 'achievement' is a human based term, are humans actually BETTER than other animals??

Besides, I couldn't care less about humans as a whole. I will be seeing to my survival and mine alone in the foreseeable future, and in the event that I need oversee another humans well-being, I will only do so if they are first capable of surviving, and providing something of use to me, you know, as human nature dictates.

We don't have that stuff, but hey look we developed technology that more than makes up for the lack of those things. Physical attributes aren't everything. It doesn't matter whether success comes from physical or mental attributes, what matters is that there is success. All those physical attributes of animals? Nothing compared to what we did with our mental ones.

Cheetah runs fast? Car goes faster. No claws? Guns and knives. Not strong? We have machines to move shit. Can't see at night without aid? Why's the 'aid' matter, if you manage to see at night, you manage to see at night. And we have airplanes to fly us places.

Our senses? We managed to see far beyond our planet with what we came up with. Who cares about what capabilities we'reborn with? What matters if what we accomplish regardless of the means.

My point, if you had read and absorbed ANY of the information in my last post, was that valkyrie said we were 'more advanced' or 'superior' genetic processess. the only advancement we have on primitive animals, is a scientifically proven virus that caused our brains to grow in place of our jaw muscles. We're a genetic fuck-up that has a superiority complex. Nothing more, nothing less. The simple fact that we have to MAKE shit to keep ourselves alive is a failing we have yet to overcome, not a point to our superiority.

Apparently you don't get my point. It's pretty clearly more advanced because, well, just look at the results of it. HOW it happened it nothing but a diversion from the point.

And as for superior genetics, well our genetics produce something capable of dominating the planet. So which are superior? Pretty damn obvious. Our brains don't pop out ex nihilo, they're a product of our genetic processes, and one that apparently is worth more than any cheetah that can run fast. We do things that biology can't, making shit is superior to being born with it because of that.

A genetic fuck-up? Since when was success a fuck-up? Nature doesn't give a damn how it happened, just that it happened.

Rofl, making shit isn't something to overcome. You have a skewed view of things. It doesn't matter how it happens, what matters is that it happened. We survive. That we had to make stuff to aid ourselves do so isn't a failing, it just is. And we make stuff that biology can't compete with, so it's stupid to worship it like a god.

Our brains are not a product of our genetic processes, THAT'S what I'm getting at. A virus caused our brains to grow.
The result of that virus was a creature so defenseless, it needed to actually MAKE shit to prevent it's own extinction.

Yes, the fact that we survived would be impressive, if we didn't breed worse than rabbits, thereby creating a population too massive to actually wipe out.

Sure, at first we beat them off with sticks, then bigger sticks, then even bigger ones made of metal.

None of that matters because our 'accomplishments' only have ANY value at all when another Human is looking at them.

That in itself is a failure. We need OUR OWN SPECIES to tell us that we're actually doing something worthwhile, and that's sad.

The simple fact that humans NEED a sense of accomplishment to make themselves feel superior when, in fact, we're no greater than any other creature on this planet, is a FAILURE. It's something that is unnecessary and extra. Superfluous, and excessive.

Survival is all that matters in any creatures instincts, humans have dulled their instincts to the point that they are almost non-existent, and they need shit like towers, cars, planes, and spacecraft to make themselves comfortable at night.

Our brains are a product of our genetic processes. Your argument would mean that our genetic processes are what they are due to that. There are no magical ideal genetic processes that somehow got deviated from.
What is with your absurd view that making shit is somehow bad? It's superior to being born with it because it ends up being able to do more. Find me a biological way to fly to the moon, figure out the composition of a star light years away, or discover the beginning of the universe, then we maybe there'll be some credit to your idea of looking down at making shit. Until then, it's the superior process. Oh plus, versatility beyond what nature can provide for an individual organism. Let's see a bird that was born incapable of surviving underwater so we can compare him to a submarine.

We're not dying by the millions due to predators or something so the point about numbers is moot. Plus, breeding isn't everything. See... rabbits.

Are you being purposefully dense? Nothing has value if a human isn't looking at it, other animals don't even conceive of value. So duh, it won't have value otherwise. Neither will animals or any of your views.

That's a stupid double standard really. Animals don't do anything more worthwhile than what we do. Well unless you ask a human incapable of realizing that the only reason it's considered worthwhile is due to humans.

Sorry, but just because you need a sense of accomplishment doesn't mean the rest of us do. Speak for yourself.

Instincts are worthless if they don't bring survival. Like you said, survival matters. Let's see... when did humans enter the endangered species list?

Making shit isn't bad, but it isn't better than nature either, because we're just finding ways to imitate nature to a greater, and far more devastating extent, see: Rocket fuel.

You want me to find you a biological way to fly a living being into an empty, dead void? Are you serious? What the fuck is the point of the space program? We're just letting an uncaring, empty void know WE'RE better than it is. The composition of a star is irrelevant because it will never have any effect on our lives at all, save knowledge perhaps, and the standard model of the universe; the one where we say 'We KNOW this is how it is' is FLAWED less than one second after the universe' creation, making it irrelevant as well.

I do not look down on 'making shit' I look down on the simple fact that we believe ourselves better for making it. We're NOT.
The point you're not getting here (don't turn anything around on me either by saying 'the point I'M trying to make here...' because you quoted me first) is that the human concept of value is meaningless because it is a HUMAN VALUE, of COURSE it's meaningless to a bird or a frog, because they're birds, and frogs respectively, NOT human.
You're trying to tell me that humans are better than animals because of human values and opinions. That has got to be one of the most arrogant, conceited statements I've ever read in my life.

I don't need any sense of accomplishment because I live my life as a neutral entity, neither above or below any given species, though my opinions on being ABOVE certain members of my own species, however...

YOU obviously need a sense of accomplishment because you're spouting these ridiculous notions of 'human superiority' on nothing but the grounding of 'look what we've accomplished' whereas I couldn't give two shits about some nobody landing on our stellar satellite.
You mean to tell me, with all THAT nonsense, that you DON'T need a sense of accomplishment? Why didn't you shut the hell up ages ago then?

Humans aren't 'just surviving' nor are they 'thriving'. Humans are a larger, many times multiplied version of non-seasonal locusts. We don't survive, we don't balance ourselves with nature. We not only change nature to suit us, which you will undoubtedly try and tell me is a good thing, despite the fact that nature isn't actively trying to eliminate us and is therefore a neutral party, we also destroy everything we touch in the process, and while that is most certainly powerful, it's no different than a swarm of locusts completely shredding a crop. Just on a global scale.

How in the HELL is that, in any way shape or form, superior to an animal that, without any human input at all, OR 'higher brain functions', maintaining an almost perfect balance with nature?

Regardless of any quotes/comments/replies following this. I'm done, I'm ending this right now because it is obviously impossible to make such an arrogant, self-centered, pathetic excuse for a living creature aware of the fact that it is NOT the epitome of evolution just because it can walk to a school every day, or drive to an office every day, or even fly into the great, empty expanse of absolutely NOTHING that is space, everyday.

I live my life by ten simple rules, not the ten commandments by the way, I'm completely non-religious.
I break some of them all the the time, to be sure, as I'm only human, but I take them as they are.

Have a nice whatever-you-equate-to-be-a-meaningful life. I'm out.

 

[Sarge034]

Naturalism fallacy. We are still part of the process of natural selection - we've just altered what traits confer an advantage, like all apex predators have before us (creatures with tough hides made sharp teeth an advantage, creatures that destroyed much of the food source made the ability to scavenge/store food an advantage etc). We're not the only creature that builds things - bees and beavers do that too. We aren't even the only creatures that use tools (culturally separated, as opposed to purely instinctual, tool use has been found in chimps, orangutangs and bonobos).

We're just bees building hives, in a larger and more self-aggrandising manner. We are a naturally occurring creature, ergo everything we do is natural. It might not be right or wrong, but to distinguish it on the basis of greater or lesser naturalism is a logical fallacy - the only thing that could fail to be part of nature and natural selection would be if aliens arrived on Earth. And even then we might just have to extend our ideas of what 'natural' is, unless the aliens had no equivalent for genetic passing of material.

That doesn't mean that we don't have important moral significance. But that comes from our traits - the capacity for self-awareness, meaningful autonomy, pleasure and suffering through complex lifeplans and attribution of value to relationships and projects - not from what degree of 'naturalness' we hold.

We killed natrual selection in humans. Think about it. The stupid, weak, and (sorry to have to bring this one up) the retarted people have no real threat from preditors because they hide behind society. Society cares too much when something happens. The way I see it. Katrina.... Should have seen it comming, they live below sea leval BESIDE THE FUCKING SEA. Japan.... Sorry, shit happens and people die. All we can do is pick up the pieces and keep on keeping on. I'm not saying we need to go all sparta and throw retarted babies off a cliff, but something HAS to start praying upon us if we, as a species, wish to survive.

 

[Azure Sky]

You may have seen it happen before but doesn't make it likely with all the other circumstances added in.

Nukes won't make us lose knowledge. Society will be fragmented, but knowledge will still exist. Guns will still exist for survival as will other things. Things that require infrastructure may break down, but we'd still have some technology. This is assuming we're not all DEAD from it, which would apply equally to most animals.

Was it?

Well I said what I thought of it. People that want to do the culling with killing should off themselves for the sake of humanity, otherwise they lack the conviction to be taken seriously or they're just selfish. The rest of us can live with the consequences if there weren't enough. As for the most humane way, sterilization.

Yikes, 6 AM? XP

*Yaawn* That was a good sleep.

Anyway.
While I don't agree with culling personally, I am unsure of something such as sterilization either.
Unfortunately, I think China may have it right, but only if it was a global standard with no exceptions.

 

[bad rider]

Humanity as a species is the most destructive force on this planet we are the only species that knowlingly destroys our environment, our atmosphere, and the extinction of other species. We have the gift of knowledge and we choose to burn the world to a cinder instead of using it to make a better place. With this view I do beleive the population does need to be monitered and controled but by civilized means like birth control.

You think 'nature' is all lolly pops and gumdrops?
Nature is the most distructive force ever witnessed. it is full of chaos which, through flukes, alter the fate of millions of species.

we have the gift of knowledge, and we use it to Fight nature and try and bring order into a random chaotic world.

Global Warming, for instance.
That is a Fluke caused in a shift of the earths orbit from the increased number of massive volcanic eruptions and huge earth quakes seen in the past 50-100 years. It would of happened regardless if weither or not humans existed...

yet, as a race, we try and 'stop' it...

you give humans too much credit.
we are mearly a speck of paint in the larger picture... a grain in the hourglass of time... nothing more then a foot note in the annals of existance. To believe that we are anything more is just arrogance.

In response to the question: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

It is Human Nature to blame ourselves for events occuring that we barely understand.

Lightning strikes, Earth Quakes, Volcanic eruptions, Floods, Plauge... All brought about because of wrath of one god or another in order to punish the wicked, wrong, evil, and unfaithful...

so to your question...
Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?

No. I believe that this Naturally occuring event is *gasp* Naturally occuring.
we just so happen to be here while it occurs.

firstly:
"Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?"

Is not my question, in fact I would go so far as to say I made a statement. That statement, if put into a single sentence would be: The evidence from a questionnaire based in America (performed in 2009), shows that those who work closer with climate issues believe humans are a significant contributing factor in climate change.
I loathe to be associated with questions as biased as the one you concocted, and if in future you could refrain from putting words in my mouth that would be brilliant. However if you feel the need to at the very least can you try to make a plausible imaginary argument for me?

Secondly, to answer the question you proposed.

"If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.
.................
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
.........................

We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
.........................

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now."

I've done my best to cut down arguments made from the source below and it is better if you can read the whole page as I've have cut the details down to retain only the crux of the argument.

However to sum this up in my own words. What our involvement in climate has caused is a greater sensitivity to a naturally occurring event (Global warming). The world has heated up before but now it has started occurring faster and with more devastating effect caused by a rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere caused by humans.

I really do recommend the site below as it has been the single biggest influence on my views on global warming.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Edit: PLEASE NOTE THE AUTHOR IS MASSIVELY SORRY FOR GOING ENTIRELY OFF TOPIC WITHIN TWO POSTS.*

 

[Pyro Paul]

Humanity as a species is the most destructive force on this planet we are the only species that knowlingly destroys our environment, our atmosphere, and the extinction of other species. We have the gift of knowledge and we choose to burn the world to a cinder instead of using it to make a better place. With this view I do beleive the population does need to be monitered and controled but by civilized means like birth control.

You think 'nature' is all lolly pops and gumdrops?
Nature is the most distructive force ever witnessed. it is full of chaos which, through flukes, alter the fate of millions of species.

we have the gift of knowledge, and we use it to Fight nature and try and bring order into a random chaotic world.

Global Warming, for instance.
That is a Fluke caused in a shift of the earths orbit from the increased number of massive volcanic eruptions and huge earth quakes seen in the past 50-100 years. It would of happened regardless if weither or not humans existed...

yet, as a race, we try and 'stop' it...

you give humans too much credit.
we are mearly a speck of paint in the larger picture... a grain in the hourglass of time... nothing more then a foot note in the annals of existance. To believe that we are anything more is just arrogance.

In response to the question: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

It is Human Nature to blame ourselves for events occuring that we barely understand.

Lightning strikes, Earth Quakes, Volcanic eruptions, Floods, Plauge... All brought about because of wrath of one god or another in order to punish the wicked, wrong, evil, and unfaithful...

so to your question...
Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?

No. I believe that this Naturally occuring event is *gasp* Naturally occuring.
we just so happen to be here while it occurs.

firstly:
"Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?"

Is not my question, in fact I would go so far as to say I made a statement. That statement, if put into a single sentence would be: The evidence from a questionnaire based in America (performed in 2009), shows that those who work closer with climate issues believe humans are a significant contributing factor in climate change.
I loathe to be associated with questions as biased as the one you concocted, and if in future you could refrain from putting words in my mouth that would be brilliant. However if you feel the need to at the very least can you try to make a plausible imaginary argument for me?

Secondly, to answer the question you proposed.

"If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.
.................
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
.........................

We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
.........................

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now."

I've done my best to cut down arguments made from the source below and it is better if you can read the whole page as I've have cut the details down to retain only the crux of the argument.

However to sum this up in my own words. What our involvement in climate has caused is a greater sensitivity to a naturally occurring event (Global warming). The world has heated up before but now it has started occurring faster and with more devastating effect caused by a rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere caused by humans.

I really do recommend the site below as it has been the single biggest influence on my views on global warming.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Edit: PLEASE NOTE THE AUTHOR IS MASSIVELY SORRY FOR GOING ENTIRELY OFF TOPIC WITHIN TWO POSTS.*

Your question IS exactly that...
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Cause
a Naturally occuring event


The statement you've created off of the questionnaire is no more conclusive on the subject then any arguments with in the subject. You are simply showing a basic human reaction on a subject in which we have little conclusive evidence about. The fact that it can be debated and no real concrete evidence has been provided is more then proof to that effect.

Quiet litterally, you are saying:
"This is True because Smart People Say so!"

of which my retort is the simple fact that it is a repetative human characteristic seen many times through history to say just that on subjects which individuals know little about.

Greek and Roman scholarly works on the subject of Volcanos attributed it to the anger of Vulcanus the god of fire. Infact the word 'Volcano' is derivitative of the latin Vulcanus. This was spread across the known world and 'taught' through their system of belief and understanding. And this was known to be 'true' amongst the populace because prominant intellectual people said it to be.


To retort to your long winded explination on your stance of global climate change.

There are more factors behind Climate Change then just Co2 emissions and levels. As proof to this, During the time of dinosaurs the Co2 Levels where 12 times that of what they are to day. Many more compounds effect our atmosphere, and what you really should be looking at are Sulfates, Methanes, and Waters found in our atmosphere as they have the Largest effect then any other compound out there.

infact i've known many to argue that Past climate altering events where caused by sharp changes in the SO2, CH4, and H2O levels in the atmosphere rather then the CO2 levels. The fact that no one really argues these points or even acknowledges them in modern discussion of current climate change is just some what disheartening to say the least.

for instance, i can make this statement.
Because of reduced production of SO2 through out the world, the global tempatures have risen suggnificantly...

a lowered level of general volcanic activity occuring as well as the reduced production of So2 by industrial nations has shown to have a lack of sulfates. Sulfates condense in the troposphere and reflect sunlight, As seen with major eruptions of Mt St. Helens (1980), El Chichon (1982), and Mount Pinatubo (1991) each causing a drop in the average tempature by 2-3 degrees F for at least 3 years.

but no one ever expands on the effect of sulfates... because 'CO2 IS ON THE RISE!!' which often drowns out any other suggnificant arguments to climate change that exist.



But that is our fault. As humans we believe that we have a much larger effect on everything because we have the power of thought. We focus on the measurable things we do then attribute it to factors we know little about... from vices and sin causing retobution from the gods to Emissions and aerosoles destroying our atmosphere.

and though this is off subject, the point still remains quiet on subject.

we are the only species that actively fights the chaos and randomness of nature to mantain a 'status quo' and seek 'balance'.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

And the fact that we are the -only- species that does that makes us inherently more valuable than any other species.

 

[bad rider]

Humanity as a species is the most destructive force on this planet we are the only species that knowlingly destroys our environment, our atmosphere, and the extinction of other species. We have the gift of knowledge and we choose to burn the world to a cinder instead of using it to make a better place. With this view I do beleive the population does need to be monitered and controled but by civilized means like birth control.

You think 'nature' is all lolly pops and gumdrops?
Nature is the most distructive force ever witnessed. it is full of chaos which, through flukes, alter the fate of millions of species.

we have the gift of knowledge, and we use it to Fight nature and try and bring order into a random chaotic world.

Global Warming, for instance.
That is a Fluke caused in a shift of the earths orbit from the increased number of massive volcanic eruptions and huge earth quakes seen in the past 50-100 years. It would of happened regardless if weither or not humans existed...

yet, as a race, we try and 'stop' it...

you give humans too much credit.
we are mearly a speck of paint in the larger picture... a grain in the hourglass of time... nothing more then a foot note in the annals of existance. To believe that we are anything more is just arrogance.

In response to the question: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

It is Human Nature to blame ourselves for events occuring that we barely understand.

Lightning strikes, Earth Quakes, Volcanic eruptions, Floods, Plauge... All brought about because of wrath of one god or another in order to punish the wicked, wrong, evil, and unfaithful...

so to your question...
Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?

No. I believe that this Naturally occuring event is *gasp* Naturally occuring.
we just so happen to be here while it occurs.

firstly:
"Do i believe that we humans are at Fault for a Naturally occuring event that we barely understand Occuring?"

Is not my question, in fact I would go so far as to say I made a statement. That statement, if put into a single sentence would be: The evidence from a questionnaire based in America (performed in 2009), shows that those who work closer with climate issues believe humans are a significant contributing factor in climate change.
I loathe to be associated with questions as biased as the one you concocted, and if in future you could refrain from putting words in my mouth that would be brilliant. However if you feel the need to at the very least can you try to make a plausible imaginary argument for me?

Secondly, to answer the question you proposed.

"If there's one thing that all sides of the climate debate can agree on, it's that climate has changed naturally in the past. Long before industrial times, the planet underwent many warming and cooling periods. This has led some to conclude that if global temperatures changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and plasma TVs, nature must be the cause of current global warming. This conclusion is the opposite of peer-reviewed science has found.
.................
How much does temperature change for a given radiative forcing? This is determined by the planet's climate sensitivity. The more sensitive our climate, the greater the change in temperature. The most common way of describing climate sensitivity is the change in global temperature if atmospheric CO2 is doubled. What does this mean? The amount of energy absorbed by CO2 can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. These results have been experimentally confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 Watts per square metre (W/m2) (IPCC AR4 Section 2.3.1).

So when we talk about climate sensitivity to doubled CO2, we're talking about the change in global temperatures from a radiative forcing of 3.7 Wm-2. This forcing doesn't necessarily have to come from CO2. It can come from any factor that causes an energy imbalance.
.........................

We have a number of independent studies covering a range of periods, studying different aspects of climate and employing various methods of analysis. They all yield a broadly consistent range of climate sensitivity with a most likely value of 3°C for a doubling of CO2.
.........................

CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations. The climate response to this heat build-up is determined by climate sensitivity.

Ironically, when skeptics cite past climate change, they're in fact invoking evidence for strong climate sensitivity and net positive feedback. Higher climate sensitivity means a larger climate response to CO2 forcing. Past climate change actually provides evidence that humans can affect climate now."

I've done my best to cut down arguments made from the source below and it is better if you can read the whole page as I've have cut the details down to retain only the crux of the argument.

However to sum this up in my own words. What our involvement in climate has caused is a greater sensitivity to a naturally occurring event (Global warming). The world has heated up before but now it has started occurring faster and with more devastating effect caused by a rise of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere caused by humans.

I really do recommend the site below as it has been the single biggest influence on my views on global warming.

Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

Edit: PLEASE NOTE THE AUTHOR IS MASSIVELY SORRY FOR GOING ENTIRELY OFF TOPIC WITHIN TWO POSTS.*

Your question IS exactly that...
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Cause
a Naturally occuring event


The statement you've created off of the questionnaire is no more conclusive on the subject then any arguments with in the subject. You are simply showing a basic human reaction on a subject in which we have little conclusive evidence about. The fact that it can be debated and no real concrete evidence has been provided is more then proof to that effect.

Quiet litterally, you are saying:
"This is True because Smart People Say so!"

of which my retort is the simple fact that it is a repetative human characteristic seen many times through history to say just that on subjects which individuals know little about.

Greek and Roman scholarly works on the subject of Volcanos attributed it to the anger of Vulcanus the god of fire. Infact the word 'Volcano' is derivitative of the latin Vulcanus. This was spread across the known world and 'taught' through their system of belief and understanding. And this was known to be 'true' amongst the populace because prominant intellectual people said it to be.


To retort to your long winded explination on your stance of global climate change.

There are more factors behind Climate Change then just Co2 emissions and levels. As proof to this, During the time of dinosaurs the Co2 Levels where 12 times that of what they are to day. Many more compounds effect our atmosphere, and what you really should be looking at are Sulfates, Methanes, and Waters found in our atmosphere as they have the Largest effect then any other compound out there.

infact i've known many to argue that Past climate altering events where caused by sharp changes in the SO2, CH4, and H2O levels in the atmosphere rather then the CO2 levels. The fact that no one really argues these points or even acknowledges them in modern discussion of current climate change is just some what disheartening to say the least.

for instance, i can make this statement.
Because of reduced production of SO2 through out the world, the global tempatures have risen suggnificantly...

a lowered level of general volcanic activity occuring as well as the reduced production of So2 by industrial nations has shown to have a lack of sulfates. Sulfates condense in the troposphere and reflect sunlight, As seen with major eruptions of Mt St. Helens (1980), El Chichon (1982), and Mount Pinatubo (1991) each causing a drop in the average tempature by 2-3 degrees F for at least 3 years.

but no one ever expands on the effect of sulfates... because 'CO2 IS ON THE RISE!!' which often drowns out any other suggnificant arguments to climate change that exist.



But that is our fault. As humans we believe that we have a much larger effect on everything because we have the power of thought. We focus on the measurable things we do then attribute it to factors we know little about... from vices and sin causing retobution from the gods to Emissions and aerosoles destroying our atmosphere.

and though this is off subject, the point still remains quiet on subject.

we are the only species that actively fights the chaos and randomness of nature to mantain a 'status quo' and seek 'balance'.

Okay firstly
"Quiet litterally, you are saying:
This is True because Smart People Say so!"

Don't just rephrase my argument to make it sound retarded. Look at its merits, people who have studied climate change, who actively study climate change believe it is down to humans (bar 3'ish % of them) not smart people, people who have looked in depth at this. People who job is to look in depth at this. This alone isn't much, but given all we and hopefully you should know about climate science this is a significant factor.

It's dangerous to do things just because other people told you to, but considering these people are generally funded to work this stuff out we probably should. It's like paying someone to build a house, then because you feel you shouldn't trust them you go knock it down and rebuild it.

Secondly, yes there are other compounds being released into the atmosphere (as it says on the source page) and it's the exact point I'm making, these are causing the planets sensitivity to become much finer. Climate sensitivity has dropped from 3.7 degrees to about 3 degrees (Celsius) making us far more vulnerable to the natural rises in temperature and making them occur faster with greater effects.

Besides have you actually looked into this, because people have expanded on these ideas. When a volcano erupts it generally emits a lot of SO2 into the atmosphere, SO2 increases the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds providing a cooling effect. As so much is pumped into the atmosphere, this is often significant enough to provide a measurable drop in temperature.Edit: Sorry misread this bit in you argument.

 

[Darius Brogan]

The point I'm making is that we humans have unimaginable potential: just look at how far we've come in the last five thousand years. Trees and flowers have zero potential, and literally do not have minds, so should be disregarded.

So... Should we kill off all the plants and trees then? How about insects? or even half the other far inferior species could probably go as well. They are obviously in the way our progression to ascend to out rightful place as gods of this world? [/sarcasm]

No, because they're useful to us. We need them to exist. Note that this only makes them important in conjunction with humanity.

Okay, that was probably quite offensive and distasteful to people, so apologies where needed.

Seriously though I am probably one of the first people to admit that I dislike other people, even put back in context, the superior-species entitlement some people have these days is quite disturbing.

So here we go, you're a people-hating misanthrope, which explains why you get on better with grass than people. But some of us have a vested interest in survival and progress.

And you're a specie-elitist Hitler that doesn't seem to realize all facets of his own race (Not to mention doesn't read whole posts)

Now that I have given you the satisfaction of sinking to your level of namecalling, shall we move on?

I don't know about you, but I'm sure I can name the primary only contributing factor that will lead humanity extinct.

Oh God, tell me you didn't just compare trees to Jews, or civilization to the Holocaust.

I'm not going to bother continuing this discussion, because you're starting to give the impression of being a tiny little bit sociopathic not to mention unhinged species-traitor.

snip

Listen, it's this simple. We are humans. Look around and take in everything that we have achieved and created. Now look at animals and plants. What have they achieved? Nothing. What will they ever achieve? Nothing. They are simply biological processes. So are we. We are, however, far more advanced biological processes.

That is, of course, taking the very broad universal perspective. Since we are humans, we ought to take the human angle, which is this simple: we are human. We are more important, because we are we and they are they (not to mention considerably inferior in any case). Therefore, it is in our interest, yours and mine, to survive, even at their cost. That is instinct. That is our purpose. Anyone who fails to live by this creed, dies. Simple Darwinism.

Anyway, what's your long-term plan if it doesn't involve human survival?

I wonder if you realize that your own argument is working against you. You say humans are superior creatures, MORE advanced biological processes. Riddle me this, Why do insects have chitinous armour plating? Why are Cheetahs the fastest mammal on Earth, the Peregrin Falcon the fastest animal.

Each of them and many more all have mechanisms to maintain their own lives, Humanities only advantage is the fact that, sometime in our species history, we caught a disease, a virus, that causes our brains to develop in place of jaw muscles.
We have no claws, no fur, no armour, no fangs, we can't see at night without aid, we're not fast, we're not strong, we cannot fly. We have only the basest of physical senses that tell us what is going on in the world at large, and we rely almost entirely on our sight.
How, even with all of our supposed 'achievements', even though 'achievement' is a human based term, are humans actually BETTER than other animals??

Besides, I couldn't care less about humans as a whole. I will be seeing to my survival and mine alone in the foreseeable future, and in the event that I need oversee another humans well-being, I will only do so if they are first capable of surviving, and providing something of use to me, you know, as human nature dictates.

We don't have that stuff, but hey look we developed technology that more than makes up for the lack of those things. Physical attributes aren't everything. It doesn't matter whether success comes from physical or mental attributes, what matters is that there is success. All those physical attributes of animals? Nothing compared to what we did with our mental ones.

Cheetah runs fast? Car goes faster. No claws? Guns and knives. Not strong? We have machines to move shit. Can't see at night without aid? Why's the 'aid' matter, if you manage to see at night, you manage to see at night. And we have airplanes to fly us places.

Our senses? We managed to see far beyond our planet with what we came up with. Who cares about what capabilities we'reborn with? What matters if what we accomplish regardless of the means.

My point, if you had read and absorbed ANY of the information in my last post, was that valkyrie said we were 'more advanced' or 'superior' genetic processess. the only advancement we have on primitive animals, is a scientifically proven virus that caused our brains to grow in place of our jaw muscles. We're a genetic fuck-up that has a superiority complex. Nothing more, nothing less. The simple fact that we have to MAKE shit to keep ourselves alive is a failing we have yet to overcome, not a point to our superiority.

Apparently you don't get my point. It's pretty clearly more advanced because, well, just look at the results of it. HOW it happened it nothing but a diversion from the point.

And as for superior genetics, well our genetics produce something capable of dominating the planet. So which are superior? Pretty damn obvious. Our brains don't pop out ex nihilo, they're a product of our genetic processes, and one that apparently is worth more than any cheetah that can run fast. We do things that biology can't, making shit is superior to being born with it because of that.

A genetic fuck-up? Since when was success a fuck-up? Nature doesn't give a damn how it happened, just that it happened.

Rofl, making shit isn't something to overcome. You have a skewed view of things. It doesn't matter how it happens, what matters is that it happened. We survive. That we had to make stuff to aid ourselves do so isn't a failing, it just is. And we make stuff that biology can't compete with, so it's stupid to worship it like a god.

Our brains are not a product of our genetic processes, THAT'S what I'm getting at. A virus caused our brains to grow.
The result of that virus was a creature so defenseless, it needed to actually MAKE shit to prevent it's own extinction.

Yes, the fact that we survived would be impressive, if we didn't breed worse than rabbits, thereby creating a population too massive to actually wipe out.

Sure, at first we beat them off with sticks, then bigger sticks, then even bigger ones made of metal.

None of that matters because our 'accomplishments' only have ANY value at all when another Human is looking at them.

That in itself is a failure. We need OUR OWN SPECIES to tell us that we're actually doing something worthwhile, and that's sad.

The simple fact that humans NEED a sense of accomplishment to make themselves feel superior when, in fact, we're no greater than any other creature on this planet, is a FAILURE. It's something that is unnecessary and extra. Superfluous, and excessive.

Survival is all that matters in any creatures instincts, humans have dulled their instincts to the point that they are almost non-existent, and they need shit like towers, cars, planes, and spacecraft to make themselves comfortable at night.

Our brains are a product of our genetic processes. Your argument would mean that our genetic processes are what they are due to that. There are no magical ideal genetic processes that somehow got deviated from.
What is with your absurd view that making shit is somehow bad? It's superior to being born with it because it ends up being able to do more. Find me a biological way to fly to the moon, figure out the composition of a star light years away, or discover the beginning of the universe, then we maybe there'll be some credit to your idea of looking down at making shit. Until then, it's the superior process. Oh plus, versatility beyond what nature can provide for an individual organism. Let's see a bird that was born incapable of surviving underwater so we can compare him to a submarine.

We're not dying by the millions due to predators or something so the point about numbers is moot. Plus, breeding isn't everything. See... rabbits.

Are you being purposefully dense? Nothing has value if a human isn't looking at it, other animals don't even conceive of value. So duh, it won't have value otherwise. Neither will animals or any of your views.

That's a stupid double standard really. Animals don't do anything more worthwhile than what we do. Well unless you ask a human incapable of realizing that the only reason it's considered worthwhile is due to humans.

Sorry, but just because you need a sense of accomplishment doesn't mean the rest of us do. Speak for yourself.

Instincts are worthless if they don't bring survival. Like you said, survival matters. Let's see... when did humans enter the endangered species list?

Making shit isn't bad, but it isn't better than nature either, because we're just finding ways to imitate nature to a greater, and far more devastating extent, see: Rocket fuel.

We imitate and surpass nature when it comes to biology. It's better than biology because it can do more for us.

You want me to find you a biological way to fly a living being into an empty, dead void? Are you serious?

Hey you're the one who thinks technology isn't better.

What the fuck is the point of the space program?

Says the person who seems to complain about our resource usage.

We're just letting an uncaring, empty void know WE'RE better than it is.

I think you're projecting here. You keep going about the point being to say X is better. It isn't, you just don't get the point of technology apparently.

The composition of a star is irrelevant because it will never have any effect on our lives at all, save knowledge perhaps, and the standard model of the universe; the one where we say 'We KNOW this is how it is' is FLAWED less than one second after the universe' creation, making it irrelevant as well.

That doesn't make it irrelevant. I'm amused. Why is it that you toss out all these value judgments in opposition to people making value judgments?

I do not look down on 'making shit' I look down on the simple fact that we believe ourselves better for making it. We're NOT.

Sure we are in very many senses. We're better at surviving for instance, and supposedly you care about that.

The point you're not getting here (don't turn anything around on me either by saying 'the point I'M trying to make here...' because you quoted me first) is that the human concept of value is meaningless because it is a HUMAN VALUE, of COURSE it's meaningless to a bird or a frog, because they're birds, and frogs respectively, NOT human.

Mhm, and you were able to judge meaning without using human values. Oh wait, you did making your argument self-defeating as your proclamation that it is meaningless is meaningless by its own standard.

You're trying to tell me that humans are better than animals because of human values and opinions. That has got to be one of the most arrogant, conceited statements I've ever read in my life.

Nope. Because in many ways we are better. See: Ability to survive.

What's arrogant and conceited is whining about those traits while doing similar things to those you complain are exhibiting them. Namely making purely human value judgments.

I don't need any sense of accomplishment because I live my life as a neutral entity, neither above or below any given species, though my opinions on being ABOVE certain members of my own species, however...

Mhm, that's why you keep projecting.

YOU obviously need a sense of accomplishment because you're spouting these ridiculous notions of 'human superiority' on nothing but the grounding of 'look what we've accomplished' whereas I couldn't give two shits about some nobody landing on our stellar satellite.

Not at all. See, you're so full of it you think you know why I'm saying what I say. It's simple, you just need to grow up and stop pretending you know why I'm doing it. I'm saying it simply because I believe it. Unlike you I don't need special motives behind saying stuff besides just believing it.

You mean to tell me, with all THAT nonsense, that you DON'T need a sense of accomplishment? Why didn't you shut the hell up ages ago then?

Right back at you. Projecting. You should find out what it is since apparently you're not very good at insight into your own psyche.

Humans aren't 'just surviving' nor are they 'thriving'. Humans are a larger, many times multiplied version of non-seasonal locusts. We don't survive, we don't balance ourselves with nature.

You should quit the nature revering BS. Nothing 'balances' itself with nature. Nature smacks it down until it complies or it dies out. Nature makes it comply, it doesn't balance itself out. And learn the meaning of 'survival'. Hint: Balance with nature has nothing to do with what constitutes survival.

We not only change nature to suit us, which you will undoubtedly try and tell me is a good thing, despite the fact that nature isn't actively trying to eliminate us and is therefore a neutral party, we also destroy everything we touch in the process, and while that is most certainly powerful, it's no different than a swarm of locusts completely shredding a crop. Just on a global scale.

It is a good thing. Nature doesn't need to actively be trying to eliminate us, we just need a desire to change it. What do you expect out of life, survival and reproduction like a brute animal? And hell, we don't destroy everything we touch. Less bias plox. Some stuff is destroyed, some is changed. Locusts fail to create anything, humans do. Bad example: defeated.

How in the HELL is that, in any way shape or form, superior to an animal that, without any human input at all, OR 'higher brain functions', maintaining an almost perfect balance with nature?

Lol, quit with the BS 'balance with nature' shit. Ever heard of extinction? It happens when things fail to adapt. Animals aren't magically in balance with nature, they just manage to survive it until it changes enough they either adapt or die. The ones that live didn't somehow come up with a way to balance themselves with nature, they happen to be the descendants of ones that were most suited for it and survived.

Regardless of any quotes/comments/replies following this. I'm done, I'm ending this right now because it is obviously impossible to make such an arrogant, self-centered, pathetic excuse for a living creature aware of the fact that it is NOT the epitome of evolution just because it can walk to a school every day, or drive to an office every day, or even fly into the great, empty expanse of absolutely NOTHING that is space, everyday.

More like you refuse to even note your hypocrisy in the use of human value judgments and are going to keep throwing around insults like a 5 year old.

And what's with the strawmen? I know that evolution has no epitome. Is this more projection from you?

I live my life by ten simple rules, not the ten commandments by the way, I'm completely non-religious.
I break some of them all the the time, to be sure, as I'm only human, but I take them as they are.

Probably tree hugging, nature revering hippie shit.

Have a nice whatever-you-equate-to-be-a-meaningful life. I'm out.

And a bad one to you for your insults.

I take it back. I'm having too much fun to let this conversation die. Call me petty, but this is hilarious.

Trying to break down my entire post one step at a time, in a pathetic attempt at something vaguely resembling psychology will get you nowhere, as none of this means anything to me but a short, entertaining diversion.

I'm not projecting anything, because you need something to project for that to happen.

Everything I've said has human value because I'm a Human and can't change that. I've already mentioned that I'm not perfect. I just don't believe that having 'human values' makes us better than animals, because human values are just that "Human Values" They mean nothing to animals because animals don't need to understand them to survive.

We're no better than animals because we ARE animals. Just... animals that seriously got fucked up somewhere along the way., anywho, moving on.

All ten of the rules I follow have nothing at all to do with nature, as you yourself assumed I was a 'tree-hugging hippie': I'm not. I could care less about the environment until it affects me personally, until then, I don't really care. I take care of my own backyard, nobody else'.

Although I see it's impossible to tell someone such as yourself anything, any number of times, for it to sink in far enough to maintain meaning.

If you're so caught up in human superiority, actually prove it. Scientifically, theologically, whatever. PROVE to me that we're better without spouting conjecture and less-than-grounded opinions based on 'we went to the moon, they didn't' or 'we just are, just because we're intelligent' and I may concede the point to you.

Also, I throw insults around because I find reactions funny, not because they mean anything. Do you seriously think, knowing the internet, that any single insult would have ANY real affect on someone? It's just data being directed from 'A' to 'B'. Reactions, however, are hilarious.
Besides you have already confirmed that you are the most selfish, arrogant, self-centered, asshole I've ever encountered, so expect that I'll keep throwing around meaningless insults more out of principle, than any real attempt at insulting you.

I already know animals aren't 'magically in balance' with nature, smart-ass. It happens over many centuries. The entire ecosystem naturally balances itself out because everything that resides within it is best suited TO reside in it, simple as that. Extinction is natural selection, survival of the fittest. Those not suited to survive, don't. That's why there are so many different 'human-esque'... if you will... species that died out. They weren't fit for survival, so they didn't survive.

I'm not going to say animals are better than humans, although humans ARE the only species ever to actively hunt it's own kind for fun, but humans are most certainly not better than animals just because we've advanced into a giant virus.

I look forward to another attempt at breaking me down. If it never comes, then... I guess I'll just move on with my life...

Edit: I wonder. If we keep this up long enough, given how far detracted from the original topic of discussion we have already become. Will we eventually start talking about why Hephalumps and Woozles come in every shape and size? and why the Woozle is better suited to survival or not?

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

If you're so caught up in human superiority, actually prove it. Scientifically, theologically, whatever. PROVE to me that we're better without spouting conjecture and less-than-grounded opinions based on 'we went to the moon, they didn't' or 'we just are, just because we're intelligent' and I may concede the point to you.

Humanity going to the moon isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

Anyway, you're being obtuse. You're asking for quantifiable proof of something and then rejecting rejecting our explanations for no readily apparent reason. There's no point in trying to have a discussion with you, you aren't interested in having one, you're just interested in spouting your...whatever the hell you call this philosophy.

 

[Darius Brogan]

If you're so caught up in human superiority, actually prove it. Scientifically, theologically, whatever. PROVE to me that we're better without spouting conjecture and less-than-grounded opinions based on 'we went to the moon, they didn't' or 'we just are, just because we're intelligent' and I may concede the point to you.

Humanity going to the moon isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

Anyway, you're being obtuse. You're asking for quantifiable proof of something and then rejecting rejecting our explanations for no readily apparent reason. There's no point in trying to have a discussion with you, you aren't interested in having one, you're just interested in spouting your...whatever the hell you call this philosophy.

It's not a philosophy, it's an opinion.
Going to the moon is a human accomplishment, and therefore has value only in the eyes of humans. Also, I said "Based on
'we went to the moon, they didn't'" I never refuted the fact that we landed on the Moon.

I'm not looking for human accomplishment. I'm trying to look past natural human arrogance and discover the True Reason, we believe we're superior.

My belief is that's it is merely arrogance, and there is no true reason that humanity is better or worse than an animal.

If it's intelligence that makes us better; It has been scientifically proven that Dolphins are the only other sentient form of life on Earth, that we know of. If this is true, then with sentience, comes intelligence.

Why is it that humans maintain their air of complete superiority, even though we've actually proven that we're not the only intelligent beings on THIS planet alone?

Until I find a True Reason for human superiority, I will maintain my belief that we are no better than any other animal.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Scientifically proven that dolphins are sentient? Source, please. I've -never- heard this. Dolphins might be smarter than most animals, but as far as I know, we don't even know what -causes- sentience.

Define True Reason, anyway. You're asking us to provide something and then not telling us what you want, it's like you want veal but you tell us you just want 'The Perfect Meat'.